This writpetition
came to be filed fromtime totime under Article 32 of theconstitution ofIndia on
the premise that the Coloniser, M/s. Durga Builders(p) Ltd., respondent No.6
has not been sincere in allotment of theplots to the petitioners who,
admittedly, had bookedtheir plots with the coloniser. After the notice wasissued
and the counterswere filed in this Court, we requested Mr. Harish N. salve, learnedsenior
counsel for the coloniser, to personallylook into the matter and assist this
court in resolving the problem. We deeply appreciate and place on record our
appreciation for the efforts made byMr. Salve for the commendable jobhe has
done in this behalf. After consulting learnedcounsel appearing forthe parties andalso
looking into the matterpersonally, he has stated as under:

"1.
Various meeting have been held between the Counsels for the petitioners and the
Counsels for the respondents. The situation which emerges appears to be as
under:

(i) Thereare
petitionerswho have paid in full and have not committed any default. It isthe
Respondent's case thatdue allotments have been made to these people, some of
whom have beenput inpossession also;

registrations,
etc., are complete.

Some
of such names are included in the list of petitioner however, the respondent
insists that these petitioner have been given possession.

(ii)
The real bone of contention has been the concept of 'defaulter'. The short
payments by the subscribershave arisen on three counts, namely;

(a) Increasein
theprice of plotwith fixation of no profit no loss' by Government, Haryana Town
& Country planning Authority.

(b)
Increase in the amount payable per plotdue to readjustment in thesize of the
plot (originallyproposed size of plots was revised 100 sq. yd. to 121 sq. yd. yds)
as sanctioned by the Government of Haryana.

(c)
General non payment 2.There does notappear to be any major dispute as to the
identity of petitioners whohave made full payment. As regards the petitioners
who have refused to pay the revised rates fixed by the Government of Haryana,
the respondent had given anoffer that respondent had given an offerthat payment
ofa sum of Rs. 550/-(over and above the originallyagreed cost of above the
originally agreed cost of land) would be treated as proper payment ifpaid on or
before 15.9.1995. It ispetitioners who have paid the due amount have been
treated as having made full payment and not in default and, therefore, given
due allotments.

3.It
is the case of some of the petitioners that they were not given proper advice
notice about either the revised demandcharges, the basisof thedemand, or the
revised cost of land(due to increase in land area) and it is for that reason
that they did not make payment. The Respondent claims that notices have beensent
to each and every petitioner.

4.It isconceivable
that there beinglarge number of petitioner some of them, transferees, whose
names mayor maynot be on the record atthe may not be on the record at the
appropriate time, the notices were sent but not received.

It is
extremely difficult to believe ordisbelieve either of the parties on this
score. The Respondenthave mailed copies of letters/some of these petitioners
deny receiving thesame.

5.It
was, therefore, suggested to the respondent that one way of resolving this
problem is all those who are defaulters on account of non payment of
developmental charges or payment for difference inarea of land could be treated
more or less onpar with their making some additional payment. The respondents
are, by and large, agreeable to this proposalprovided the following can be
safeguarded;

(a)
The actual amount payable should now be paid at the rates fixedby the Haryana
Government. The respondent has suffered a loss because they have had topay the
entire amount to the Government, without petitioners making the due payment.It isnot
the case that the respondent have pocketed the moneyand not paid. The situation
is converse. The situation is converse. Theallotment of the plotswould be made
upon grant of sectionof the pending schemes ( The Respondent has applied for
sanction of the scheme to the haryana Town & country Planning Authority for
an area which is more enough the land is in possession of the Respondent). the
only problem in the allotment is the clearanceof the scheme by the clearanceof
the scheme by the haryana Government on account of anorder imposing a bar has Surajkund
area. Now the bar has been reduced to one Km. Therefore, this land is clear as faras
this Hon'ble Court is concerned.

However,
some additional safeguards have been provided.

(b) In
the existing sanctioned scheme, there area large number of plots available but
they are of considerably larger size. The respondent has already allotted
smaller plots - larger plots are unsold and in possession of the unsold and in
possession of the Respondent. The small plotshave been allotted to the booking
holders and partly givenunder the commitment to the EWS scheme.

6. Since
the petitioners are insistingfor allotment in the present sanctioned scheme, suggestionhad
been made that a joint applicationbe made by the Respondent and the present
petitioners to theHaryanaTown and country planning Authority to consider our
request for reduction inthe area of theplot bysuitably increasingthe density
norms.

7.In
other words the position is that theland is available the Respondentis willing
to make over the land at the originallypromised price (although the prices have
gone up considerably) on payment of the additional actual amount demandedby the
Government.

However,the
exact possession of the plot would only be given on clearanceof the scheme by
the HaryanaTown & countryplanning Authority.

8.To sumup,
the position is as under :

(i) It
is the Respondent's case that there isadequate land in itspossession. The
Respondent is also willing to abideby the originalprice of land together with
such developmentalcharges as are allowed to it by the Government ofHaryana.

(ii)
The actual possession of the land canbe given only on the grant ofapproval for
the revision of density norms by the HaryanaTown and Country planning Authority.

(iii)The
respondent, in any way,is committedto its original offer to return the moneytogether
withinterest as this Court mayconsider just and proper." A readingof theabove
would clearly indicate how meticulous analysis ofthe problem. Two broad issues
remain to be solved. Firstly,allotment of the plots either in the existing
scheme or the schemepending approval with the HaryanaTown and Country Planning
Department, respondent No.5 (for short the 'Department'). Asuggestion camethat
if the Department agrees to increase the density of thearea and thereby
existing plots are converted into smaller plots, all the petitioners in these writpetitions
could be accommodated in the existingscheme. In case thesaid authority findsit
difficult toreduce the plotarea, in the scheme pendingapproval, the petitioners
could be adjusted therein. In that behalf, we find that there is no intractable
difficultyin sorting out the problem. The Department is directedto findthat
there is no intractable difficulty in sorting out theproblem. The Department is
directed to find out first, whether the increase in density of plots be possible,whetherthe
increase in density of plots be possible, thereby reduce the plots into smaller
size in conformity with the existingRules governing the sanction of thescheme.In
casethere is any difficulty, the Department is free toapproach this Court for
necessary orders.

In casethere
is any intractable difficulty in adjustment of the same, on necessary sanction
being granted to the pending scheme, allthe petitioners should be adjusted in thependingscheme.

The
next area ofcontroversy pertains to the cost of the land. It is seen that the
Government ofHaryana has decided the pay charges for internal development and
external development.As far as cost of the land is concerned, thecoloniser has
agreed to abideby therate which it had contracted for, namely.Rs.100/- to
Rs.200/- per square yarddepending upon the sizeof the plots. As far as thedevelopment
charges are concerned, they are now governed by the orders of the Department.
As regards internal development, the Government has fixedRs.878/- for the plots
of the size, between 135 sq yardsto 170 sq.

yards.
Practically, there may not be any difficulty inthis behalf for thereasonthat
the matter could be easily verified from the record of the appropriate
Department of the Haryana Government. A letter has been placed before us in
this behalf. Prima facie, we proceed on theterms of the said letter. If thereis
any difference, it can sorted out with referenceto undisputed record of the
Government. As regardsexternal developments,it is worked out at Rs.4.7 lakhs
per acre thatwould be borne obviously be the allottees.

Mr. Dhawan,
learned senior counsel, haspointed out that licences held by the coloniser hadlapsed
on account of non-conditions.mr. Salve, learned senior counsel , has broughtto
our notice that pendingwrit petitions the colloniser hasalready deposited Rs. 3
crores and the balanceamount would bedeposited shortly afterthe disposal of the
writpetitions. under these circumstance, the necessary licences or renewalthereofwould
be granted by the appropriate authority according to rules. Thereafter, the
above exercise would be done. Thiswould be done within a period of six weeksfrom
the dateof receipt ofthis order.

Itis
then brought to our notice that in case the densityis notincreased and therebythe
plots cannot be converted intosmallerplots necessary plot to all of the
petitioners in the pending scheme. Mr. salve, learned senior counsel, has
suggested that the record of thecoloniser is open to scrutiny and in casethe petitionershave
feeling that the coloniser isavoiding allotment of the plots, 4th respondent is
at liberty to look into the matter and it can directly allot the plots to theallottees
whoselist will be supplied by the coloniser to it. With this fair stand taken
by thecoloniser, we prima facie accept it to be justified.

partiesare
at liberty to approach thisCourt in case of any difficulty for further
direction.